Re: Cheap oil forever!

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:23:18 GMT

Here's another fine example of Patrick's astonishing gift for
dishonest context-chopping. Read and learn what true commitment to
deceitfulness really is.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:57:53 GMT, "susupply" <susupply@mindspring.com>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net>
>
>who also doesn't read his own sci.econ posts,
>
> wrote in message news:40ce2ded.25356646@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:03:18 GMT, "susupply" <susupply@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><royls@telus.net>
>> >
>> >the only Mensan I've ever met who can't read (his own sources)
>>
>> You've never met me, liar. And as I will prove below, I read my
>> source far more accurately than you.
>
>Moron, your claim was that the PRIMARY cause of price increases after the
>early 1970s was:
>
>> >> >> ...primarily
>> >> >>because the fraction of current oil supply that can be extracted at
>> >> >>such very low cost has been declining.
>
>YOUR SOURCE

<yawn> Oh, grow up, little boy. I provided a source of historical
price charts that proved I was right about the direction of prices and
Grinch was wrong. I did not say I bought into everything on the site.
Much of it makes no sense, like the silly idea of averaging the price
of oil over half a century as a guide to future prices (which you so
hilariously embraced).

>says it was OPEC using the Israeli war of 1973 as an excuse for
>an embargo, the Iranian revolution, and the Iraq-Iran war of the early '80s.
>Which is what Grinch told you.

<yawn> The Iran-Iraq war, the last of those events, has been over for
like 15 years. Oil is flirting with $40/bbl. You are destroyed.

>> ><< If long term history is a guide, those in the upstream segment of the
>> >crude oil industry should structure their business to be able to operate
>> >with a profit, below $15.28 per barrel half of the time. >>
>>
>> I cited the source's price data. That is not price data.
>
>$15.28 per barrel is not PRICE data? What, pray tell, is it then? (And,
>it's right there in your source.)

No, it isn't. It's the _median_ of US prices over several decades,
stated in 2000 dollars, a virtually meaningless number. Too bad you
cannot figure out for yourself what such numbers are.

>> That is an
>> editorial opinon which IMO makes very little sense, as it assumes
>> prices decades ago define current prices.
>
>YOUR SOURCE said: "In the post World War II era oil prices have averaged
>$19.61 per barrel adjusted for inflation in 2000 dollars. Through the same
>period the median price for domestic crude oil was $15.25 in 2000 prices.
>That means that only fifty percent of the time from 1947 to 2003 have oil
>prices exceeded $15.25 per barrel."
>
>Note that 2003 is not "decades ago".

??? 1947 is. And in fact, so are _most_ of the years from 1947 to
2003. Duh.

<snicker> I'm afraid it's become a little too easy to see why _you_
didn't get into Mensa...

>> And anyway, it says _if_ long term history is a guide. The chart
>> shows clearly that it isn't. Your claim that this statement
>> contradicts _any_ of my statements is therefore exposed as a lie.
>
>YOUR SOURCE used that chart in making its predictions.

I cited the source's historical real price charts, not its editorial
opinions or price _predictions_.

>> >and
>> >
>> ><< Crude Oil prices ranged between $2.50 and $3.00 from 1948 through the
>end
>> >of the 1960s.
>>
>> That is nominal.
>
>Moron, the above was followed with:
>
>> ><<...In 1996 dollars crude oil prices fluctuated between $14 - $16 during
>> >the same period. ....

Thank you for quoting the proof that I was right.

>> The chart shows _real_ prices declining over the
>> same period, which makes sense, if you are intelligent and
>> knowledgeable enough (hint: you're not) to realize that there was mild
>> inflation over that period, resulting in declining real prices.
>
>Neither mild, nor wild, inflation means "declining real prices".

??? Uh, it does when the nominal prices don't rise at least as fast
as the inflation. Which they didn't. As the real price charts
clearly show. And as you are clearly not intelligent enough to
understand.

>> ><<...In 1996 dollars crude oil prices fluctuated between $14 - $16 during
>> >the same period. ....
>>
>> Nope. The chart shows clearly that there was a little fluctuation
>> 1947-1957, but then a steady decline until 1973.
>
>The price, according to YOUR SOURCE's graph, was the same in 1947 and 1966.

?? And...? How, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your
"mind," does that contradict what I said? In 1947 the real price was
still rising towards its post-war peak in 1948-9, a peak it revisited
in 1957 before declining steadily until 1973.

>>> ><< From 1958 to 1970 prices were stable at about $3.00 per barrel, but
>in
>> >real terms the price of crude oil declined from above $15 to below $12
>per
>> >barrel. ....
>>
>> Exactly as I said. Which proves that you lied again.
>
>Your story was:
>
>> ...for over 100 years up until the early 1970s, real oil
>>>prices fell pretty consistently
>
>>From 1958 to 1970 is TWELVE YEARS, Mensa Breath.

You have simply taken that statement from a different context and
falsely claimed I made it in this context. That sort of cheap,
despicable deceit is a favored technique you use when you need to
cover up one of your lies with another lie.

>> ><< ....If there was any doubt that the ability to control crude oil
>prices
>> >had passed from the United States to OPEC it was removed during the Arab
>Oil
>> >Embargo. The extreme sensitivity of prices to supply shortages became
>all
>> >too apparent when prices increased 400 percent in six short months.
>> >
>> ><< From 1974 to 1978 world crude oil prices were relatively flat ranging
>> >from $12.21 per barrel to $13.55 per barrel. When adjusted for inflation
>> >the prices were constant over this period of time.
>>
>> The real price chart proves I was absolutely correct, lying filth.
>
>First, your story is that the prices were RISING at this time.

That is a lie. Prices have fluctuated wildly since 1973, and I never
said otherwise. The trend has definitely been up, as the chart
proves.

>Second, the above, along with:
>
>> ><< Crises in Iran and Iraq
>> ><< Events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price
>increases
>> >in 1979 and 1980. >>
>
> is a refutation of your claim that it was due "primarily" to "the fraction
>of current oil supply that can be extracted at very low cost has been
>declining". YOUR SOURCE has destroyed that argument.

No, lying filth, it simply places a different emphasis on the causes
of the price increases that proved I was right and Grinch was wrong.
Of course the 1973 embargo, the Iran revolution and other events
caused large price increases. That's why I mentioned "geopolitical
events." Remember? But such events cannot explain why prices have
been higher, and usually _much_ higher, for three decades running,
except for a brief moment in 1998 when they revisted the low of 1972
(and even then did not approach the low of 1932).

-- Roy L

Quantcast